It is possible that to the extent the Center for American Progress is seen as a Soros front, it is not at all surprising that it is looking for new ways to influence the debate on Israel in this country in a direction inimical to recent US policy. But to the extent it is also seen as tied to the Clintons, it may be a way for Mrs. Clinton, to signal to some on the left that she is not a captive of the right wing pro-Israel community, and will be more open minded on the subject should she be elected.Read the whole thing.
Mrs. Clinton was not viewed as very pro-Israel when she ran for the Senate in 2000 (barely winning half of the Jewish vote in a race against a political unknown, Congressman Rick Lazio), and spent much of her first term building up her bona fides with the pro-Israel community in a state where 10% of the population is Jewish. But in the current political climate surrounding the Democratic nomination fight, Mrs. Clinton is viewed by the agitated and aggressive anti-Iraq war left as having been an enthusiastic advocate for that war in 2002 and 2003.
One of the new litmus tests for anti-war advocates is to also be unsympathetic to Israel (to put it in the most delicate terms. You need to see the signs at rallies or read the posts at moveon.org or dailykos.com to gauge the real hatred for Israel on the left). Many on the left would be happy if Israel disappeared. Could Mrs. Clinton, through the Center for American Progress, be signaling to the anti-war left that while she can not reverse her vote on the original Iraq war resolution, that she can create a new policy towards Israel and the Palestinians if elected?
Tonight’s #Top20Posts: It's Go Time
7 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment